Skip to main content

Security report for liverpoolveterans.co.uk

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 10 critical or high findings in Email security, SSL/TLS and 3 other checks.

Security score

52/100

Risk levelMedium

0–100, higher is better. How it is calculated

The website www.liverpoolveterans.co.uk currently presents only a minimal directory index page with no substantive content, metadata, or business information. The domain WHOIS lookup failed due to a naming rules violation, indicating the domain is either invalid or improperly registered under Nominet UK policies. This severely limits the ability to verify the legitimacy or operational status of the website or associated business. Technically, the site lacks HTTPS, security headers, and any modern web technologies, exposing it to security risks and poor user experience. No privacy or cookie policies are present, and no contact or business details are available, further reducing trustworthiness and compliance posture.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 100 · Medium
Checks completed
7of 7

NIS2 Art. 21(2)

  1. (a) Risk analysis and security policies: Not visible from outside
  2. (b) Incident handling: One indicator
  3. (c) Business continuity, backups and crisis management: Not visible from outside
  4. (d) Supply chain security: Not visible from outside
  5. (e) Secure acquisition, development and maintenance, including vulnerability handling: Partly checked
  6. (f) Assessing the effectiveness of security measures: Not visible from outside
  7. (g) Cyber hygiene and security training: Not visible from outside
  8. (h) Cryptography and encryption: Partly checked
  9. (i) HR security, access control and asset management: One indicator
  10. (j) Multi-factor authentication and secured communications: Not visible from outside

This scan rated NIS2 with an earlier keyword method that is no longer shown; rescan for the per-article view. Risk management, continuity, supply chain, training, MFA, management oversight (Art. 20) and incident reporting (Art. 23) need internal evidence, and Guard cannot tell whether NIS2 applies to this organisation.

GDPR is indicative only, based on publicly visible signals: Articles 7, 12, 13 and 32 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive. Not a certification or legal assessment.

Priority findings

10 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

  2. SSL/TLS

    TLS encrypts the connection and proves the site is really yours. Weak or expiring certificates trigger browser warnings and put traffic at risk.

    • High

      Weak Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1
    • High

      Weak SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

  3. DNS health

    DNS sends visitors and email to the right servers. Misconfigured records can cause outages or let someone redirect your traffic.

    • High

      Domain Expires Soon

      Domain expires in 20 days

      What to do: Renew domain registration before expiration

  4. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • High

      No Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com

Keep watching liverpoolveterans.co.uk

This scan found 28 issues across 6 checks. Monitoring re-runs those checks daily, emails you when something material changes and records each fix, so you can show progress.

Daily monitoring

Recommended

€25per month

  • TLS certificates and expiry
  • DNS records
  • SPF, DKIM and DMARC
  • Security headers
  • GDPR and NIS2 posture
  • Exposed services
  • Third-party trackers
  • Security score drift

Email alerts on material changes and an exportable JSON history of every change.

Billed monthly to your card. Cancel anytime. The full timeline opens with your unlock code.

Full report

€39.90one-time

  • The complete analysis as a PDF you can cite
  • Email delivery with an unlock code
  • Lifetime access to this report

Prices incl. 21% VAT. Secure checkout by Mollie; sold by SEQ SIA, Latvia.

Results by check

Each check with its score, findings and the evidence it collected.

How this score is calculated

The security score runs 0–100, higher is better. It is the plain average of the security checks that completed in this scan, each counted equally. A check that could not run is left out: it counts neither as a pass nor as a fail.

Counted in this score

SSL/TLS
42
Security headers
15
Email security
60
DNS health
45
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
52

Not counted

  • NIS2 outside view: Re-weights evidence from the TLS, email, DNS, network and hygiene checks, so counting it would count that evidence twice. Shown on its own.
  • OffSeq Observations: An AI reading of the site, useful context but not reproducible evidence. Shown on its own.

Findings that cap the score at 49

Each of these is serious on its own, so while any is present the site cannot rate better than high risk, however good the other checks are.

  • The certificate is not trusted by browsers
  • The website is not served over HTTPS
  • A database, remote desktop, file-sharing or Telnet service is reachable from the internet
  • The page loads a script from a compromised source
  • The domain registration has expired
  • SPF authorises every server to send mail as the domain

Partial scans

When the site blocks Guard or most checks cannot run, the score covers only the checks that ran (usually DNS and email), is capped at 75 and is shown as partial, without a risk level.

Risk levels

  • Critical0–25
  • High26–49
  • Medium50–75
  • Low76–100

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

Due to the absence of business-related content, metadata, or contact information, no meaningful business intelligence can be derived. The domain appears inactive or misconfigured, with no clear market positioning, services, or target audience. There are no indications of partnerships, certifications, or operational scale. The lack of WHOIS data and domain registration issues suggest the domain may not be legitimately owned or maintained.

Security posture

The security posture of the website is poor. The absence of HTTPS means data transmitted is not encrypted, exposing users to interception risks. No security headers are implemented, and directory listing is enabled, which can leak sensitive information about the server structure. The lack of privacy and cookie policies indicates non-compliance with GDPR and other data protection regulations. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are present. Overall, the site is vulnerable and lacks basic security hygiene.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL/TLS certificate to secure data transmission.
  2. Disable directory listing to prevent information disclosure about server contents.
  3. Add standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection.
  4. Develop and publish privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and build user trust.
  5. Ensure proper domain registration and resolve WHOIS issues to establish legitimacy and trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Performance
moderate
Mobile
poor
Accessibility
poor
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
10/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
poor
User experience
poor
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
poor
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website content is minimal and consists only of a directory index page with a single cgi-bin folder.
  2. No metadata, no Open Graph tags, no structured data found.
  3. No forms, no contact information, no external links, no social media links detected.
  4. No scripts or technologies detected in the HTML content.
  5. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  6. No security headers or HTTPS detected; site appears to be served over HTTP.
  7. WHOIS lookup failed with an error indicating domain naming rules violation.
  8. Website appears inactive or improperly configured with no meaningful content.
  9. No advertising or analytics tools detected.
  10. No business or company information available on the site.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is served as a simple directory listing with no CMS, frameworks, or scripts detected. The lack of HTTPS and security headers indicates outdated or minimal hosting configuration. No performance or accessibility optimizations are evident. The site is not mobile optimized and lacks SEO metadata. The technical infrastructure appears minimal and not maintained, posing risks to business continuity and user trust.
Standards and sources

Reference chips under each finding point to the standard, regulation or specification the finding relates to. They are taken from the official datasets below and mapped conservatively: a finding with no defensible link shows none. NIS2 and GDPR references mark where a finding is relevant evidence, not a compliance verdict. Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690 binds digital infrastructure and digital service providers; for other entities it is the most detailed public reading of the Article 21 measures. WCAG, EN 301 549, European Accessibility Act and Web Accessibility Directive references name the requirement an automated accessibility rule relates to; they are not a conformance verdict.

Retrieved 2026-10-25

Reviews of this site

Share your experience with liverpoolveterans.co.uk. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.

Overall rating
Select a rating
4000 characters remaining

We’ll email you to confirm your review and keep your details private.

Community rating

No published reviews yet. Be the first to review liverpoolveterans.co.uk.

Feedback on this report

Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.

Overall report quality
Select a rating
2000 characters remaining

We only use your feedback to improve Guard reports. Contact details are never shared.